The process and delivery methods of BIM design are still evolving. Without a unified standard, design firms apply BIM in various ways.
The familiarity with 2D CAD design, developed over years since the introduction of drawing board technology, remains deeply ingrained. This technology is well-established and widely used in projects. Infrastructure development, driven by government initiatives aligned with China’s socialist framework, has fueled significant industry growth. Traditional 2D design limitations are often addressed through coordination or post-design adjustments.
Introducing new BIM technologies can be transformative or problematic in practice. BIM software demands high-performance hardware and graphics capabilities, making team assembly and technical training costly and time-intensive. Tight survey and design schedules, combined with immature BIM technology, often hinder timely project delivery. Whether state-owned enterprises or restructured private design firms, many hesitate to be early adopters due to cost concerns. They question whether traditional methods can still yield better returns with similar investments.
After careful consideration, companies weigh BIM’s advantages against its high upfront costs, lengthy return on investment, and associated risks. Given these factors, many prefer to stick with traditional, stable 2D design methods that allow for quicker, smoother project completion and more predictable outcomes.
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up